Distribution: Distributed on the Indian
subcontinent and from Central China through South East Asia, Afghanistan
and as far as Java and the Philippines. Resident on lakes, marshes and
ponds where it feeds on invertebrates, frogs and fish.

Identification: Conspicuous because of the long
"pheasant"-like tail of the male in the breeding season, an unmistakable
bird. The plumage is blackish-brown with white head and neck. On the nape
of the neck there is a yellow mark. Its wings are dazzlingly white in
flight. Females are slightly larger than males with similar but brighter
colours.

Behaviour: Often congregates in quite large
flocks in winter.

Breeding: In the breeding season, the male grows
the 15cm (6") arching tail, to which the bird owes its name. A female may
mate with up to ten males, each of which incubates a clutch and raises his
own brood.

Identification: This bird is black with wide
white supercilium and light bill with slate wattle. Long light grey legs
and toes. Bright brown wings with dark brown to black mantle. The tail is
short and rounded.

Behaviour: Seems more adept at swimming and
diving than flying and is a reluctant flier. It is a shy bird, difficult
to see among the luxurious, emerging vegetation and curling lily leaves,
sinking its body to avoid being seen."

'Carnivorous';— those that eat raw flesh; such as
the Heron, the Vulture &c. What are meant are those that eat raw flesh
only; and not those that eat both (raw and cooked flesh), such as the
Peacock and the rest.

'Livinq in villages'—even though they be not carnivorous.

'One-hoofed
animals; '—e.g., the Horse, the Mule, the Ass and so forth.

Abb.: Einhufer: Pferdehuf

'Not specified';—i.e. those that have not been specified as fit to be
eaten should not be eaten ; those that have been so specified are fit to
be eaten. For instance, it has been declared that 'one who desires to
obtain offspring shall eat the meat of the camel, the horse, the bear and
the white ass', [and here the one-hoofed animals, horse and white ass, are
specified as fit to be eaten].

"The eatability of these animals is known only from this Shruti-passage.
And the presence of the term 'specified' in the verse would be understood
to mean that the animals thus specified in the Vredic passage may be eaten
even elsewhere (apart from Vedic sacrifices also) ; the meaning of the
text being 'one shall avoid those not specified, but not those specified.'
As a matter of fact however, nowhere in the Smrti have any one-hoofed
animals been specified, as fit to be eaten, with reference to which the
term 'not specified' (of the text) could be explained. Hence it comes to
this that ' those not specified in the Shrufi are unfit to be eaten'."

Our answer to the above is that such a sense of the Smrti would be
contrary to all usage. The term 'not specified' is a mere re-iterative
reference.

'Tittibha'—is a bird which is always screaming 'tit', 'tit'. In most
cases the names of birds are in imitation of their sounds ; as says the
Nirukta—'The name Kâka [Krähe] is in imitation of the sound ; such is the case
with most bird-names.'

in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika p. 540), which adds the following
notes :—'Kravyâdah' are the vulture and other birds that eat raw
flesh only, and also the peacock and others that eat both raw and cooked
flesh;— 'grâmanivâsinah' stands for such village-birds as the
pigeon and the like, which do not eat flesh;—the term Shakunîn is
to be construed with both 'kravyâdah' and 'grâmanivâsinah';—'ekashapha'
are the horse and other one-hoofed animals,—'anirdishtah' means '
those that are not mentioned in the Shruti as fit for eating '; those
that are mentioned as such should certainly be eaten ; this refers to
such sacrificial animals as are mentioned in the Vedic texts like the
following:—'One should sacrifice the horse to Tvashtr' ; which implies
that the flesh of the horse so sacrificed must be eaten ;—'Tittibha'
is the name of the bird that makes the 'tî tî' sound.

Vasishtha (14.48).—'Among birds, those who seek food by
scratching with feet, the web-footed ones, the Kalavinka [Hausspatz, Passer domesticus],
the water-hen, the flamingo...a vulture,...those feeding on flesh and
those living about villages.'

Vishnu (51. 28-30).—'On eating the flesh of carnivorous animals
and birds one should perform the Tapta-Krcchhra; on eating the Kalavinka [Hausspatz, Passer domesticus]
...one should fast for three nights ;—also on eating one-footed [?]
animals and those with two rows of teeth.'

This is a black bird with a long neck, a long, slender bill with a
hooked tip and a long, wedge-shaped tail. It has a slight crest in the
monsoon breeding season and a white chin patch during the rest of the year.
It is a fish eater found throughout the subcontinent on pools, lakes and
rivers, but also at tidal estuaries. Cormorants have a characteristic low
position in the water when swimming and upright stance when perched on a
branch or rock by the water, often with the wings held out to dry.
Excellent divers, they chase and catch their prey underwater. They may be
seen in twos and threes or in very large flocks. The Great Cormorant [Phalacrorax
carbo) is larger (82 cm) and has a yellow throat patch. (Little Cormorant:
51 cm)"

Sexes alike;head, neck and underparts greyish-white;under tail-coverts mottled
with brown, bill and gular pouch flesh colored; found in large lakes, reservoirs,
etc, gregarious, often found in association with egrets and cormorants;breeds
from September to April;Globally threatened/Vulnerable,but wide spread resident
species in India;population declined drastically in last two decades,only about
6,000 birds known from Indian subcontinent. "

"The spotted-billed or grey pelican is the
commonest Indian species of pelican. It is a large, heavily built water bird
found throughout India, Sri Lanka and Burma in all the better-watered areas and occurs as a permanent resident bird or a local migrant in many parts of South
India. They feed almost exclusively on fish, which they catch by swimming
collectively in a semi circle, driving the fish into shallow water and scooping
them up in their large pouch, which serves as a net. They breed in large
colonies from November to April, nesting on tall trees."

Sexes alike;ashy-grey, white and brown goose;generally occurs on large jheels
and rivers, breeds in swampy high altitude lakes in Ladakh, winter migrant
elsewhere, including North India;gregarious, nocturnal, often feeding on winter
arable crops, common throughout North India;species is refered to as "Hamsa"
or"Rajhans" in ancient Indian epics, and its trans-Himalayan migration is
equated to religious pilgrimage;estimated world population around 20,000 birds."

A bright orange brown duck, male develop a black collar in breeding
season;common winter migrant to large open lakes and rivers with mud flats and
shingle banks; large congregation on Northern lakes and reserviors, within India
breeds in high altitude lakes and swamps in Ladakh; arrives in North India by
October and departs by April; winters in southern half of its breeding range."

Sexes alike; red head and upper neck ; grey plumage; red legs, affects open
cultivated well - watered plains, marshlands and jheels. Occurs in pairs or
small flocks; elaborate courtship display; breeds from July to October in N
India. Resident but nomadic in C and NW India."

An enormous bird,
standing as high as a man, with long legs and neck, it is unmistakeable
with its brilliant red, bare head and upper neck, white crown and lustrous
grey plumage. It is found throughout the north of India, south to a line
between Surat and the Godavari delta, but especially in eastern Rajasthan,
Gujarat and the Gangetic plain, and prefers well-watered cultivated areas
close to pools and marshes. Winter gatherings of several score birds occur,
but otherwise they are usually found in pairs and small family groups. The
Sarus Crane pairs for life and has a spectacular nuptial dance in the
breeding season in which the pair first exchange loud trumpeting calls,
each stretching its neck skywards to answer the other, and then begin to
dance around each other in a circle, leaping up and down on their long
legs, flapping their wings wildly. The pair seems inseparable, always
found at its regular resting spot and commuting together in the morning
and afternoon to nearby feeding grounds. The typical loud trumpeting of
the Sarus Crane is often heard when such a pair calls alternately in a
kind of duet during flight. Their faithfulness is so admired that no-one
molests them for fear of bringing ill-luck on himself. The diet is a mixed
one including grain and tubers as well as fish, frogs and insects, and
they do some damage to crops. (156 cm)"

'Sparrow', 'Kalavinka' is the name of a
village-bird described in the scriptures. Its prohibition being already
got at by the general prohibition of all 'village-birds', the separate
mention of the sparrow implies the eatability of the female sparrow
; the term 'Kalavinka' being a masculine just like the term'bull.'

Others have explained that this name has been added for the purpose of
excluding (from the prohibition) the wild sparrow, which retires to the
forest during the rains. They are called 'village-birds' because of their
living in the villager during the greater part of the year ; just as is
the case with the 'wild buffalo.'

The prohibition of the 'plava', the hamsa, and the cakravâka'
being already got at from the general prohibition of all 'web-footed birds',
the separate mention of these is for the purpose of emphasising the
obligatory character of their exclusion, —the eating of the 'Âtya'
and other ' web-footed' birds being regarded as optional,

"India, which gave the red jungle fowl, the mother of
all poultry to the rest of the world, is now importing poultry from outside and
destroying its own indigenous species. Today these unique breeds are
disappearing, partly because of neglect and partly because of crossbreeding;
about 99 per cent of all wild populations have been contaminated by domestic or
feral chicken. But certain rare breeds still exist and there is time to save
them "

"THE WONDER BIRD

The red jungle fowl (RJF) is one of the four jungle fowls found in the Indian
subcontinent belonging to the genus Gallus, the other three being grey,
Ceylon and green. It is also know as Gallus bankiva or Gallus gallus
murghi.

RJF is distinct in its appearance. It’s strikingly colourful plumes and a
majestic red comb gives it a regal appearance. But what makes it unique is the
eclipse plumage, which is now used to identify the bird. According to Satya
Kumar, scientist at the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun: "The shape of the
plumage makes it easier for the bird to escape quickly from predators through
undergrowths and bushes."

The male plumage and the colour of the ear lobes differ according to the
climate and geographical location. The shade of red varies from golden yellow to
dark mahogany. There are also some differences in shape and length of the neck
feathers among males. This divides the red jungle fowl into five clear
subspecies: Cochin-Chinese red, Burmese red, Tonkinese red, Indian red and Javan
red. Among unique characteristics of RJF is that it sheds its plumes in the
summer. The hen, which can lay up to nine eggs in one sitting, has no visible
comb or wattle.

The RJF population is distributed across the Indo-Malay peninsula. Apart from
varied geographical locations, it also lives in most varied habitats — from
rainforests to drylands.

From the centre of domestication, the fowl
soon moved where trade took the Indo-Aryans. Persia, modern day Iran, was
possibly one the first countries to receive the domestic fowl from northwest
India as part of the trade connections between the agricultural areas of the
Indo-Gangetic plain and the Fertile Crescent. The Persians then took it to
Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), from where it went down to Asia Minor. In the
7th-8th century BC, it moved further to Greece and, by the 5th-6th century BC,
it had encompassed a large area of the Mediterranean basin, where it received
special privileges and honour in the Roman empire. The Romans considered it as
sacred to Mars, the God of war, while Plato wrote of people cock-fighting
instead of labouring.

In Egypt, domestic fowl became firmly
established under Greek and Persian influence. Several pictorial and written
artefacts have been found in Egypt. One of them is a rooster’s head in a mural
from the tomb of Rekhmara, vizier of Thutmose III (1479-1447 BC) at Thebes.
Discovered in 1835, the drawings appeared in several books on Egyptian art and
archaeology. The first reproduction was in Travels in Ethopia published
in 1835. The mural depicted a procession of 50 human figures representing many
races bringing tribute to Thutmose III. The tribute include a variety of animals
and birds. Among them was a gold image of the head of a rooster with a pea comb
and features of RJF.

The other possible route the fowl took
while travelling to many parts of the globe is to Europe via the Black Sea
through China and Russia. Ancient Chinese documents also indicate that the fowl
was introduced in the country as early as the 13th or 14th century BC. The
rooster is one of the 12 astrological signs in the Chinese calendar. They also
reached the Germanic and Celtic tribes before the Christian era. They were
brought to the US about 470 years ago with the European conquests. "

"The grey jungle fowl (Gallus sonneratii) is greyish, with and a
metallic black, and sickle-shaped tail. This species occurs throughout Southern
and Western India in hilly and well-wooded country. It is generally found singly
or in small parties in forest and scrub jungles and comes out to feed only in
the early morning and late evenings and remains hiding away in thick cover
during the heat of the day. It feeds on grains, seeds, insects, grubs, small
fruits, berries, tender shoots and roots."

"But why should there have been any suspicion regarding the
non-eatability of the wild cock at all ?"

Because another Smrti text says simply—'Among birds, the cock',
which indicates that all kinds of cock are equally 'unfit to be eaten' ;
it is for this reason that this general statement has been sought by the
present text to be limited in its scope.

"But why cannot this be regarded as a case of option, since the present
text permits the eating of the wild cock, which the other text forbids?"

This cannot be a case of option; it is a case of option only when there
are two contradictory texts of equal authority bearing upon the same
subject; in the present case however, there is no contradiction; there is
no difference in the actual teaching of the two Smrtii-texts concerned;
because it is quite reasonable to regard the general statement as
restricted in its scope; specially as a third independent text has already
been quoted above.

"If this be so, then the general prohibition regarding the web-footed
birds may be taken as restricted in its scope to the Hamsa and
other specified birds ; so that the prohibition does not extend to ail
crows and web-footed birds,"

This would have been the case if the Smrti-treatises were not the work of
a human author. In the case of works of non-human origin, if they proceed
from different sources, there would be no useful purpose by making the
general statement restricted to the particular case of the Hamsa and
other birds; while in the case of the work of human authors, if they
proceed from different persons, it is quite possible that the person who
knows the truth in its general form is ignorant of it in the restricted
form, or the person who know it in the limited form is ignorant of it in
the wider form ; so that when we come to consider the source of the two
statements, we assume the existence (in the Veda) of a general statement
as the source of one, and a particular statement as the source of the
other ; and these two Vedic statements occurring in two different
recensional texts, the only reasonable course is to construe them together,
unless there are distinct injunctions bearing upon the two statements.
Specially as no such complaint can be raised against the Vedas as—'What is
the use of the general statement if it is to be taken in its restricted
sense?' There is no room for such a complaint, because there is no author in the case against whom such a complaint could be raised.
Specially as in the case of a Vedic statement, the only idea that is
obtained is from the actual words of the .text, only that which can be
derived from the words themselves ; and there can be no justification for
the assuming of any other meaning, for any purpose whatsoever.

What the 'Rajjudâla' and other birds are is to be learnt from persons
versed in the science of birds.

in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 540), which adds the following
notes :—'Kalavinka' is the câtaka, the sparrow; these
being already included under grâmanivâsinah, their separate
mention is meant to indicate that they are always to be avoided ; which
implies that the 'câsha' and other ' grâmanivâsi birds may be
eaten.{All this latter note is attributed to Medhâtithi by the writer;
but no words to this effect are found in Medhâtithi ; see Translation}.—The
epithet 'grâma' in 'grâmakukkutah' indicates that wild kukkuta
is not forbidden; 'sârasa' in the bird called 'pushkara,'
which has a long neck, long feet and is of blue colour ;—'Rajjudâla'
is the wood-pecker ;—'dâtyûha' the black-necked bird ;—'Shuka' is
parrot;—'sârikâ' is well known by its own name.

Âpastamba (1.17.32-33, 35).—' Among scratching birds, the tame
cock shall not be eaten ; among pecking birds, the Plava shall not be
eaten ; nor the swan, the Bhâsa [?] the Brahmani duck [Casarca rutila,
evtl = Tadorna ferruginea], or the falcon.'

Abb.: Casasca rutila

Vasishtha (14-48).—'Among birds, the scratchers, the peckers,
the web-footed, the Kalavinka [Hausspatz, Passer domesticus], the
water-hen, the flamingo, the Brahrnaniduck, the Bhâsa, the crow, the blue
pigeon, the osprey, the Câtaka, the dove, the crane, the black partridge,
the grey heron, the vulture, the falcon, the white egret, the ibis, the
cormorant, the peewit, the flying-fox, the night-flying birds, the
wood-pecker, the sparrow, the Railâtaka [?], the green pigeon, the
wag-tail, the village-cock, the parrot, the starling, the cuckoo, the
carnivorous birds and those living about villages (should not be eaten).'

Shankha (Do ).—'The partridge, the peacock, the pheasant, the
white partridge, the Vârdhrînasa bird [Grey Hornbill, Ocycerosbirostris ?]and the duck,—these
Yama has himself declared to be fit for eating.'

"The Indian Grey HornbillOcyceros
birostris (60Ccm) is the commonest hornbill in and around Delhi (indeed the
entire country), as it inhabits both town and country gardens, orchards, groves
and open forests. It is a medium sized, long-tailed greyish bird with a long
decurved bill. The tail is tipped with black and white, It has blackish
eye-stripes and a black based yellow bill with a black casque."

Sexes alike; a familiar plover with black tipped red bil1, crimson red,wattle
and bright yellow legs;foud at jheels,tanks,ditches,puddles,open cultivation and
country side; generally crepuscular and nocturnal, feeds actively in
morning,evening or moonlit nights- keeps in pairs or three, breeds in N India
from March to September."

With its high-pitched, screaming 'did-he-do-it' cries, this bird is often
seen all over India at the seasonal pools of water called 'jheels' and
otherwise near water in open country. A lanky bird with a black head, neck
and breast, it is bronze-brown above and white below and has a white
stripe running down the side of its neck. In front of the eye there is
fleshy red wattle. It flies with slow flaps of its long, rounded wings,
continually turning and twisting in the air. It never perches in trees and
feeds by running zig-zag around the ground in quick little dashes looking
for insects or bits of vegetable matter. Its eggs, laid in a bare scrape
on open ground, are an exercise in camouflage, and intruders that approach
the nest are distracted by an impressive display of dive-bombing put on by
the birds. (33 cm)"

"The night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax
nycticorax) more or less resembles the paddy bird or pond heron in size and
appearance, but has a stouter bill. It is found throughout India, Burma and Sri
Lanka, commonly in all the better-watered tracts, both inland and along the
seacoast. They feed mostly at night and during the evening and morning twilight.
Their food consists of fishes, frogs, aquatic insects, dragonflies, etc. The
breeding season ranges from April to September. Their nest is composed of twigs
placed in trees gregariously and their nesting colonies may extend to several
adjacent trees. "

'Web-footed', The Âti and the rest. That there is un option in regard to
this has already been pointed out above (Bhâshya on
12.)

"Wherever there is an option, it depends upon the man's wish which of the
two options he will adopt ; and as a matter of fact, it is only an
unforbidden course that can be so adopted. The act of eating is an
ordinary temporal act, possible only when there is a desire on the part
of the man (to do it); it is not a spiritual act, which would have to be
done in any case. So that we do not see any useful purpose that could be
secured by an optional prohibition."

Our answer to this is that this has already been answered.

"But what has been said may be all right in regard to cases where (as in the Veda) the comprehension of the meaning depends entirely upon the words
of the text, and there is no intention (of any author) behind them (to
indicate their true purport). The present treatise however is the work of
a human author, having been composed by him with great care and labour,
for the purpose of supplying in brief all the information that was
contained in another voluminous work containing a hundred thousand verses;
so that no needless word can be used in it. In fact it is for this reason
(of his not using a single superfluous word) that the author comes to be
regarded as a 'Teacher'. It is not that there is no prohibition of all web-footed birds in general, in which case alone the prohibition of a
particular web-footed bird, the Hamsa, could be justified. Since the
present verse also is a Smrti-text (and it forbids all web-footed birds in
general). Some people have held that the term 'jâlapâda' (web-footed
bird) in the present verse is a wrong reading".

We have already explained that the intention of the Teacher is understood
with the help of gestures, actions and the spinning out of long
explanations; and in the present case particular details are also inferred.
What was meant to be said was that 'one shall not eat web-footed birds in
normal times'; but the author has propounded the prohibition in the wider
form, with a view to justifying both prohibitions (of web-footed birds in
general, and of the Hamsa in particular).

'Sûnâ' 'Slaughter house', is that place where animals are killed
for the purpose of selling their flesh. Others explain it as 'meat-market'.

'Nakhavishkira' are those birds that scratch with their nails;—e.g.
the Peacock, the Cock &c.

These birds are partly 'fit to be eaten' also, in view of the assertion
that these may be eaten 'in abnormal times;' specially in view of what
another Smrti-writer has said regarding 'the Cock among birds' (being
eatable). But the present text of Manu cannot be regarded as referring to
the Cock; as in that case the separate mention of the 'Cock' would be
useless.

in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 540), which adds the following notes:—'pratudâh'
are the birds that strike with the peak and then eat;—'jâlapâda'
is the web-footed bird, e.g. the câsha and the like—'koyashti'
is a species of wild birds ; —'nakhavishkira' is the bird that
scratches out food with its nails;—'nimajjya matsyâdân' are those
birds that catch fish by diving under water; e.g. the aquatic crow and
the like;—'sûnâ' is the slaughter-house, and 'sauna' is
that which is got from there ;—'vallûra' is dry fish.

A burst of brilliant shades of irridescent blue may
draw attention to this bird. Unnoticed at its lookout on a bare tree
branch, it suddenly opens its brilliantly coloured wings to
parachute down from its perch to pick up a grasshopper, beetle or
lizard it has spotted on the ground. Usually a perch with a
commanding view is chosen. At rest the rufous brown back and breast
help it to blend into the background, although wings, vent and tail
are blue. The head is big and the bill is sharp and crow-like.
Nearly always encountered singly, it is quite common throughout
India and frequents open country and scrub and orchards on the
outskirts of villages. In the breeding season, its amazing courtship
flight reveals the reason for its name - it rockets up in the air,
tumbles around and somersaults, then nosedives only to perform yet
another loop. Occasionally the female joins in, but usually she just
watches. It breeds from March to July and builds and untidy nest.
(31 cm)"

A
solitary and inconspicuous bird for most of the year. It has a short neck,
brown upperparts streaked with beige, and white underparts. However in the
breeding season, when the birds gather in small groups to nest in trees at
the waterside, the head takes on a yellowish brown hue and bears long,
white plumes, and the back becomes chestnut brown. The Paddybird feeds in
typical heron fashion on fish, frogs, Crustacea and insects. It is seen by
ditches, ponds and marshes throughout the countryside, especially in the
plains, and is mostly noticed only when it takes flight, uttering a harsh
croak and revealing its brilliant white wings. (46 cm)"

A graceful and surprisingly acrobatic flier, the Pariah Kite is a
scavenger which is almost as familiar a part of the Indian urban scene as
the House Crow. Big for a kite, it is a dark, reddish-brown bird with long,
sharply angled wings and a long, conspicuously forked tail. It may
suddenly dive down to the road, zig-zagging through telegraph wires to
snatch up some piece of refuse or carrion in its talons. Pariah Kites are
confirmed thieves, stealing food both from man and from each other. They
are gregarious birds, congregating in urban areas especially near refuse
tips and markets and often roosting together in large numbers in favoured
trees at night Although primarily carrion eaters, they are also known to
take mice, lizards, chickens and a variety of larger insects. The breeding
season is usually after the monsoon and continues through the winter and
spring. The nest is an untidy platform placed in a large tree. (61 cm)

Brahminy Kite Fam: Accipitridae) Haliastur indus

This unmistakeable kite is less active in the air than the Pariah Kite
and often seen perched on a favourite branch overlooking a stretch of
water. The plumage is chestnut red with a white head, neck, upper back and
breast. The sexes are alike. The black tips to the wings and the rounded
tail are conspicuous in flight. Not uncommon all over India, it is mostly
found alone or in pairs at estuaries, tidal creeks, harbour inlets and
fishing villages, but also frequents inland lakes and rivers. It scavenges
dead fish, which it deftly picks off the surface of the water, garbage
from ships in harbour and living prey such as crabs, lizards and insects.
It breeds in winter, building its nest in a large tree. Both sexes share
in care of the young. (48 cm)"

The prohibition of the 'Baka, Balâka and
Kâkola' being already included under that of 'fish-eaters', these have
been mentioned separately in order to indicate that the eating of the
other fish-eating birds is optional.

'Fish-eaters'.—Animals other than birds also, which eat fish,
are to be regarded as 'unfit to be eaten'; such animals, for instance, as
the alligator and the like; that this is what is meant is clear from the
fact that the name 'fish-eater' is to be applied in its literal
sense.

Kâkola is the same as the Kite, such being its name in foreign
lands ; for instance, it is known by this name in the Bâhlîka
country.

The prohibition of the 'village-pig' implies the permission to
eat the wild pig. The prohibition o£ those 'living in villages' in
the preceding verse (11) should be taken, on the strength o£ the context,
as referring to birds only. It is only thus that there would be any point
in the mention of the 'village-pig' in the present verse. The pig that
lives in villages is called 'vidvarâha', 'village-pig.'

"If in verse 11, 'those living in villages' are to be taken, on the
strength of the context, as birds only, then the term 'fish-eaters' in the
present verse also should be taken as referring to birds only,"

Not so ; because the present context is not restricted to birds only ;
since it mentions also non-birds, such as the 'village pig' and 'fish.'

in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 543), which adds the following
notes :—The 'vaka' and the 'balâkâ' are well known birds
;—kâkola is the Drona-kâka ;—'khânjarîta' is the
khanjana;-—'matsyâdâh' are the alligator and the like;—the
prohibition of the 'vid-varâha' implies the sanction of the wild
boar,—'sarvashah' means 'in every way ';

15. He who eats the flesh of an animal, is called the 'eater of its flesh';
he who eats fish is the 'eater of all kinds of flesh' ; hence one shall avoid
fish.

Medhâtithi:

This is a commendatory supplement to the
foregoing prohibition of fish.

When one eats the flesh of an animal, he comes to be described as
connected with the act of eating that animal; e.g. the mongoose [Mungo] is
called 'serpent-eater', the cat 'rat-eater' and so forth. He who eats fish
eats all kinds of flesh ; it would be right to speak of him as as 'beef-eater'
also.

Description: A compactly built hunter, with a bushy tail,
long, cylindrical body, short legs and tiny, semicircular ears set
close to the head. It may be up to 90 cm long, with a pointed snout
and eyes positioned quite far forward. The coat is rather long and
coarse and has a pepper-and-salt colour, resulting from the
alternate bands of white and black on the individual hairs. The skin
of the snout, outer edge of the ears and around the eyes has less
hair and a reddish tinge. The tip of the tail is pale or reddish.
There is some geographical variation in the darkness of coat colour,
and in desert areas it is more reddish. The feet are well-adapted
for digging, with powerful claws on five, clearly separate toes, and
the ears have special flaps for closing when digging. Mongooses mark
their surroundings with the secretions from special anal glands.
They communicate with a harsh mew.

Distribution & Habits: Its diurnal habits and presence in
areas of human habitation make this one of the most frequently
observed mammals throughout India. Mongooses are not forest animals,
preferring open scrub or areas of cultivation. Seen trotting along a
path or beside a hedge at any time of day, it always gives the
impression of being on urgent business. It is famed above all for
its deadly duels with poisonous snakes. The quickness of movement of
the Mongoose as it springs back and forth confuses the snake,
preventing it from aiming correctly when it strikes back. Eventually
the snake becomes exhausted and the mongoose, which is also
partially immune to the snake's venom, finishes it off with a
well-aimed bite to the head. Mongooses generally eat whatever they
can catch, as well as carrion and fruit, and they also raid chicken
pens. Despite this, they are welcome residents around human
habitation as they rapidly rid the area of rats and other vermin.
This easy coexistence with humans and their fecundity — a female can
produce 5 litters of 3 kittens each in a year — makes them one of
India's commonest animals. They may make their home in a burrow, an
old termite mound, a hollow tree or even the rafters of an old
outbuilding."

Âpastamba (1.17.
38-39).—'Among fish, the Ceta [?] should not be eaten ;—nor the
snake-headed fish or the alligator, or those that live on flesh only, nor
those misshaped like the Mermen [Meermänner].'

Yama (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 546).—(Same as Manu, and also)— 'The
following are unfit for eating—the alligator, serpent, leech, Madgu
[Kormoran?], peacock-shaped aquatic animal, small snake-like fish,
crocodile, water-hen, and those fish that have ears like the horses, or
without scales, or having mouths at both ends.
—The student of Veda should avoid all
scaleless fish.'

Paithînasi (Vîra-Âhnika, p. 54ft).—' The Kulîra, Vârtâka,
Pattana, Jalânarta and Kshipraga are unfit for eating. Fish with scales
are eatable; others are uneatable, so also the snake-headed fish and fish
with mis-shaped mouth.'

Vasishtha (14.11,42).—'Among fish, the long-nosed crocodile, the
Gavaya, the porpoise, the alligator, the crab, should not be eaten, nor
those that are mis-shaped or snake-headed.'

Biology: Found in large rivers, lakes and tanks. A large, voracious
and predatory catfish which thrives in heels with grassy margin (Ref. 6028);
mostly hides under holes in river banks and canals (Ref. 44149). Associated with
deep, still or slow-flowing water with a mud or silt substrate (Ref. 6028).
Sluggish and stays on muddy or silty bottom in search of food. Juveniles feed
mainly on insects; adults feed on smaller fish, crustaceans, and mollusks.
Abundant during the warm season; a premonsoon summer breeder. In the Mekong, it
is reported to migrate to smaller streams, canals and to the floodplain during
the flood season (Ref. 37770). When the water level in the Mekong drops and the
flood recedes, it moves to the Mekong or larger tributaries, where it stays in
deep pools until the next inundation period (Ref. 37770). Destructive to other
more valuable food-fishes. Bites strongly if handled, with its huge mouth,
formidable jaws, and band of conical teeth

Biology: Inhabits rivers (Ref. 4832). A diurnal species and usually
solitary. Burrows occasionally. Feeds on plants. Spawning season generally
coincides with the southwest monsoon. Spawning occurs in flooded rivers.
Fecundity varies from 226,000 to 2,794,000 depending upon the length and weight
of the fish and weight of the ovary. Widely introduced outside of its native
range for stocking reservoirs and aquaculture. Utilized fresh (Ref. 9987)

Biology: Occurs in large rivers on the bottom, even with swift
current (Ref. 12693). Never enters small streams (Ref. 37770). Found among
boulders, often in the white water of the rapids where it apparently is
indifferent to the strong current. Feeds primarily on prawns but will take small
fishes and aquatic insects (Ref. 6868). Spawns in rivers before the rainy season
(Ref. 12693). Migrates in schools. Reported to migrate to follow its prey. Also
reported that it follows Catlocarpio siamensis during its upstream
migration (Ref. 37770). Apparently the main upstream migration begins close to
the peak of flood when the current is very strong and the water is turbid (Ref.
37770). Sold fresh in markets. Not a higly esteemed food fish, because its
fibrous flesh spoils rapidly and can cause illness (Ref. 12693)

'Pâthîna' and 'Rohita'—two
particulars kinds of fish-having been mentioned as fit to be offered to
Gods and to Pitrs [Manen], the eating of these is permitted on the
occasion of the performance of Shrâddha and other rites ; and not in the
course of ordinary daily food.

As for the the 'Râjîva', the 'Simhatunda' and the 'Sashalka'
fish on the other hand, these are to be eaten 'on all occasions';
i.e. they may be eaten also on occasions other than the offerings to Gods
and to Pitrs.

'Râjîva' ;—some people regard this as standing for
lotus-coloured fish. Others explain it as standing for those fish that are
marked by lines.

Medhâtithi and Govindarâja explain the meaning to be that " The
Pâthîna and the Rohita are to be eaten only when offered to the gods or
Pitrs, and not ordinarily, while those enumerated in the second half are
to be eaten ' sarvashah' at all times."

Kullûka objects to this explanation
on the following grounds :—There is no authority for the view that the two
kinds of fish are to be offered at Shrâddhas, eaten only by the person
invited at it, not by the performer of the Shrâddha or other persons,
while the other kinds are to be eaten by others also;—in fact all other
authorities have placed all those mentioned here on the same footing.
Kullûka's own explanation is as follows:—'The Pâthîna and the Rohita
should be eaten, as also the Râjîva and the rest ';—and the phrase 'niyuktau havyakavyoh' he takes as standing by itself, in the sense that 'all things that are forbidden may be eaten, when one is threatened with
starvation, after they have been offered to the gods and Pitrs'.

This verse is quoted

in Mitâksharâ (on 1. 178), which goes one farther than
Medhâtithi, and adds that those enumerated in the second line also are to
be eaten only when offered at Shrâddhas and sacrifices;

and in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 547), which adds the following notes :—'âdyau'
means 'are to be eaten'—when they are 'niyuktau'—i.e., used for the
purpose of Shrâddha and other offerings;—'Pâthîna' is that which is also
called 'Candraka'. 'Râjîva' is red-coloured, 'Simhatunda' is that which
has its mouth like the lion's, 'Sashalka' are fish covered with
shell-like skin.

It is quoted in Smrititattva (p. 449);

in Hemâdri (Shrâddha, p. 577);

and
in Smrtisâroddhâra (p. 300), which explains 'niyuktau' as employed tor
Shraddha and other purpose, and 'âdyau' as 'may be eaten,' 'râjîva' as red-coloured.

'Solitary'—those animals that move about
singly (not in herds)} such as serpents, owls and the like.

'Unknown'—as regards name and kind.

'Beasts and birds,'—neither beasts nor birds are fit to be taken.

'Even though indicated among those fit to be eaten'—Those that
are not actually forbidden are, to that extent, regarded as fit to be
eaten ; and hence indirectly 'indicated ' as such. In reality, there is no
direct indication of those fit to be eaten. Those that are not specially
recognised as to be avoided come to be regarded as fit to be eaten ; and
these are spoken of us 'indicated as fit to be eaten'.

Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 544), which adds the
following notes :—'Ekacara' are those animals which, as a rule, roam
about alone, such for instance as serpents ;—'ajnâtâh'—whose name and
species are unknown, i.e., one should not eat unknown animals which,
though not falling under any species either generally or specifically
prohibited, are understood by implication to be included under those that
are permitted;—nor should one eat any five-nailed animals, with the
exception of the shashaka and the rest (enumerated in the next verse).

Gautama (17-27).—'Five-nailed
animals should not be eaten, excepting the hedge-hog, the hare, the
porcupine, the iguana, the rhinoceros and the tortoise.'

Baudhâyana (1.12-5).—'Five five-nailed animals may be eaten—viz.
the porcupine, the iguana, the hare, the hedge-hog, the tortoise and the
rhinoceros, except (perhaps) the rhinoceros.'

Âpastamba (1.17-37).—'Five-nailed animals should not be eaten,
excepting the iguana, the tortoise, the porcupine, the rhinoceros, the
hare and the Putîkasha [?].'

Vasishtha (14. 89, 40, 44, 47).—'Among five-nailed animals, the
porcupine, the hedge hog, the hare, the tortoise and the iguana may be
eaten; among domestic animals, those having only one row of teeth, except
the camel; those not mentioned as fit for eating should not be eaten;
regarding the wild boar and the rhinoceros, there are conflicting opinions.'

Vishnu (51. 6, 26, 27).—' On eating the flesh of five-nailed
animals,—except the hare, the porcupine, the hedge-hog, the rhinoceros and
the tortoise,— one should fast seven days ; on eating the flesh of the ass,
the camel and the crow, one should perform the Cândrâyana,—also on eating
unknown flesh, or flesh from the slaughter-house, or dried flesh.'

Yâjnavalkya (I. 174, 177).—'Unknown animals and birds, flesh
from the slaughter-house and dried flesh (should not be eaten). Among
five-nailed animals, the following may be eaten: the porcupine, the
hedge-hog, the alligator, the tortoise and the hare.'

Devala (Vîra-Âhnlka, p. 543).—'Among animals, the following
should not be eaten: the cow, the camel, the ass, the horse, the elephant,
the lion, the leopard, the bear, the Sharabha [eine Hirschart], serpents
and boa constrictors, the rat, the mouse, the cat, the mongoose, the
village-hog, the dog, the jackal, the tiger, the black-faced monkey, the
man and the monkey.'

"GUANA, IGUANA, s. This is
not properly an Indian term, nor the name of an Indian species, but, as
in many other cases, it has been applied by transfer from superficially
resembling genera in the new Indies, to the old. The great
lizards, sometimes called guanas in India, are apparently
monitors. It must be observed, however, that approximating Indian
names of lizards have helped the confusion. Thus the large monitor to
which the name guana is often applied in India, is really called
in Hindi goh (Skt. godhâ), Singhalese goyâ. The
true iguana of America is described by Oviedo in the first
quotation under the name of iuana. [The word is Span. iguana,
from Carib iwana, written in early writers hiuana, igoana,
iuanna or yuana. See N.E.D. and Stanf. Dict.]
"

"In as much as the present verse specifies the porcupine &c. as alone
fit to be eaten, among five-nailed animals,—it follows that all the other
five-nailed animals are unfit to be eaten ; so that the prohibition of
'all five-nailed animals' becomes entirely superfluous."

There is nothing wrong in this. When the prohibition is stated in so
many words, our comprehension of it is direct; if on the other
hand, we were to derive our knowledge of what should not be eaten from the
specification of what should be eaten, our comprehension of the
prohibition would be only inferential, indirect ; and this would be a
complicated process.

—the twice-born man eating these intentionally would become an outcast.

Medhâtithi:

'Chatraka' is the same as kavaka,
the mushroom, ;

'Vidvarâha' is the village-pig, which wanders abont unchecked.

By eating these the man becomes an outcast. That is, he should
perform the Expiatory Rites prescribed for outcasts. It will be asserted
later on (11-56)—'The eating of forbidden food is like the drinking of
wine.'

in Aparârka (p. 1157), which notes that the intentional
eating of these things make the twice-born person an 'outcast', i.e.,
disqualifies him from all that is done by twice-born persons, and the
expiation for this would be the same as that prescribed for
wine-drinking.

It is quoted in Mitâksharâ (on 1.170), which says that this
refers to intentional and repeated eating of the things; also on 3. 229
;

in Parâsharamâdhavâ (Prâyashcitta, p. 317), as
referring to intentional eating;

and in Madanapârijâta (p. 825) to the effect that the
intentional eating of forbidden things is equal to wine-drinking; and
again on p. 927, to the effect that it is intentional and repeated
eating-that is equal to wine-drinking and hence makes one outcast, while
by intentionally eating these only once, one only becomes liable to the
performance of the Cândrâyana.

218. One who performs the 'Yati-Cândrâyana' shall eat dayly at
midday eight morsels, controlling himself and eating only 'sacrificial
food.'

Medhâtithi:

'Unintentionally'—unwillingly,—'having
eaten these'— any one of the six just mentioned ;—that it is any one
that is meant, and not all together is indicated by the fact that the act
of eating in this ease is nor what is actually enjoined.

'In the case of the rest'—i.e. in the ease of eating the other
things-—'red exudations from trees' and other things forbidden above,—one
should desist from eating 'for a day' ;-~the term 'day' is used as
including the night also ; e. g. in such passages as 'the day is
dark, the day is bright'—(Rgveda 6.9.1.)

In connection with the eating of some of the things here forbidden,
the text is going to prescribe in the section on Expiatory Rites (Discourse
11) distinct expiatory rites ;—e.g.. in connection with 'carnivorous
animals, pig etc' (11-156); and in this case those are the Rites to be
performed ; since they have been directly enjoined in so man words;
specially as the single 'day's fast' here prescribed will have its
application only in cases other than those especially provided for.

in Madanapârijâta (pp. 927 and 825) as laying down the
expiation for the unintentional eating of the things;

in Parâsharamâdhava (Prâyashcitta, p. 317) to the same effect,
with the additional note that the 'Sântapana' meant here must be
that which extends over seven days.

The last quarter is quoted twice in Mitâksharâ on 3. 290, to
the effect that if one eats forbidden things other than those here
mentioned only once, and that unintentionally, he has got only to fast
for the day;—under 1. 175 to the effect that the eating of the forbidden
birds unintentionally makes one liable to fasting for the day;—and the
first three quarters on 1. 176, where it is pointed out that it refers
to unintentional and repeated eating of the things; —also on 3. 229 as
laying down the expiation for unintentional eating.

It is also quoted in Aparârka (p. 1157), to the effect that
by unintentionally eating the things enumerated repeatedly one becomes
liable to the Yati-cândrâyana, and by eating other forbidden
things to fasting during the day,

Vishnu (Parâsharamâdhava, p. 319).—' On eating the flesh of dogs,
and on eating mushrooms, one should perform the Sântapana ; on eating
substances cooked overnight,—except preparations of barley or wheat or
milk, or what is smeared with oils, or dry sugar-candy—one should fast.
Substances growing out of incisions or unclean things, the red exudation
from trees, needlessly cooked rice-sesamum,...on eating these one should
fast for three days and should stand in water for one day.'

21. Once a year the Brahmana shall perform the 'Krcchra' penance, in
order to atone for unintentional eating; but for intentional eating special ones.

"Krcchra" = Prâjâpatya Krcchra:

siehe Manu XI, 211:

211. The tweicw-born, who is performing Prâjâpatya shall eat in
the morning for three days, then in the evening for three days, then for
three days food got unasked, and for the next three days he shall not eat.

Medhâtithi:

This refers to the Brahmnna who is in the habit
of eating at the house of those Shudra whose food he is permitted to eat.

It is possible that at the house of a Shudra, there may be some
articles of food that are not fit to be eaten by the Brahmana, which can
not always be avoided ; if the Brahmana eats at the house of such a Shudra,
there is always a fear of his having partaken of some forbidden food ;
hence for him it is laid down that he should perform the 'Prâjâpatya
Krcchra'. In all cases where the precise form of the 'Krcchra'
is not laid down, it should be understood to be the 'Prâjâpatya Krcchra',
as we shall explain later on.

'In order to atone for unintentional eating'—i.e. in the event
of there being suspicion of his having unwillingly partaken of forbidden
food ; that is, for the expiating of the sin incurred, in the event of his
having eaten forbidden food.

"But the expiation for this is going to be prescribed later on, under
5-127."

What that means and refers to we shall explain in connection with that
verse.

For the act committed intentionally, special rites should be performed;
i.e that expiatory rite which has been prescribed in so many words in
connection with a particular case.

22. The commended beasts and birds my be killed by Brahmanas for the
purpose of sacrifice, and for the purpose feeding their dependents; as Agastya
did this of old.

Medhâtithi:

In connection with food fit to be eaten, the Text
proceeds to sanction the act of killing.

If one's dependents are very much pressed by hunger, and no other food
can be found, then one may kill such birds and beasts as are fit to be
eaten. The exact meaning of the term 'dependent' has been explained before
(as standing for parents, wife etc.)

The mention of Agastya—that Agastya did the act—is only by way of
recommendation.

The first half of the verse is purely commendatory; because the act of
killing in connection with sarcifices is directly enjoined by the Vedic
injunctions themselves (and as such does not stand in need of any sanction
from the present text).

'Commended'—i.e. permitted as fit to be eaten.

This same thing i> stated in the next verse in greater detail, as
bearing upnu the recommendation of certain acts.

in Mitâksharâ (on 1. 179) to the effect that just as there is
nothing wrong in the eating of meat which is the remnant of sacrificial
and Shrâddha offerings, so also there is none in eating that which is
left after the dependents have been fed.

It is quoted in Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 537)? which adds
that animals are to be killed for feeding one's dependents, only when
there is no other means of feeding them; and this implies also that
there is no harm in one's eating the meat himself that is left after the
feeding of dependents;

Vasistha (4.5-8).—' The
Mânava text states :—"Only when he worships Pitrs and gods or honours
guests, he may certainly slay animals : on offering the honey-mixture to
guests, and at rites in honour of Pitrs and gods and at a sacrifice,—on
these occasions only may an animal be slain." The slaughter of animals at
sacrifices is no slaughter. One may cook a big ox or a big goat for a
Brahmana or Kshattriya guest,'

Vasistha (14.15) —'It is declared in the Veda :—"At a
sacrificial session which lasted one thousand years, Agastya went out to
hunt ; he had sacrificial cakes prepared with the meat of beasts and fowls
good to eat " '

Yâjnavalkya (Do ).—'One who kills animals against the law,
dwells in terrible hell for as many years as there are hairs on the body
of the animal.'

Yama and Paithînasi (Do.).—'One should not kill any
animal for his own sake ; if he cooks it for the sake of gods and
Brahmanas, he incurs no sin.'

23. In ancient times at sacrifices performed by the sages, as also at
sacrifices performed by Brahmanas and Kshattriyas, the sacrificial cakes were
made of eatable beasts and birds.

Medhâtithi:

The killing of beasts and birds has bee a
prescribed in connection with the sacrifice named 'Shadrimshat-samvatsara'
(Twenty-six Years). This is what is referred to in the present verse. The
Brahmana-passage bearing upon the subject is as follows:— 'At the end of
the day the master of the house goes out hunting, and out of the flesh of
the animals that he kills sacrificial cakes are made'.

In as much as the present verse is purely commendatory, no significance
is meant to be attached to the past tense in the term 'babhûva', 'were
made' ; hence the same thing is done now-a-days also.

The same holds good regarding the term 'purâneshu', 'in
ancient times'. This also means that people should not consider that
the said sacrificial practice has come into force in recent times only.—Or,
the term may be taken to mean that 'it should not be understood that there
is nothing to sanction the practice of killing animals at sacrifices'.—Or,
the term may be regarded as added for the benefit of those persons who are
incapable of comprehending the meaning of the scriptures themselves, and
who regulate their conduct entirely in accordance with the practices of
other people, on the principle that 'the right path is that whereby great
men have gone'. The meaning is that 'this practice is not of recent origin,
it is without beginning'.

The 'ancient sages' are certain Brahmanas, well-known for their
austerities. Or, it may stand for a distinct species of beings; as
described in the Mahâbhârata and other works. In this connection it is not
necessary to press the objection that— "If these sages belong to a
distinct species of beings, they are like Gandharvas and others, and as
such, not entitled to the performance of sacrifices.";—since the passage
is a purely commendatory one, and as such, may be understood in any way
one chooses.

'Brahmaksahttrijjasava',—sacrifices performed by Brahrmanas and
Kshattriyas.

Vîramitrodaya (Âhnika, p. 537) quotes this verse as Arthavâda
to the preceding verse, the meaning being as follows :—' Inasmuch as in
ancient sacrifices performed by sages, edible sacrificial cakes used to
be made of animals and birds killed for the purpose, these may be killed
by men of the present day also.'

That the sacrificial cake is to be made of the flesh of animals has
been laid down in connection with the ' Thirty-six-year Sacrificial
Session', about which we read that "on the closing day of which, the
master of the house goes out hunting, and out of the flesh of the animals
killed there the Savanîya sacrificial cakes are prepared."

24. Such Food and eatables as are mixed with oils may be eaten though
stale, if unspoilt; so also what may be the remnant of a sacrificial offering.

Medhâtithi:

'Whatever food is mixed with oils' —
'Food' stands for Rice etc. Though the roots to 'eat' and to 'feed' are
synonymous, yet the two terms 'food' and 'eatables' have been used with a
view to the various articles of food.

'Unspoilt'—here stands for what has not become sour by keeping.

Such food 'may be eaten, though stale.' That is called 'stale'
which has been kept over night. What is cooked on one day also becomes 'stale'
the next day.

'Mixed with oils.'—In regard to this the following question is
raised :—

"Does this mean that whatever in the shape of vegetable juice etc. has
been cooked with oils should be eaten even when stale ?—Or, that oils are
to be mixed up with dry articles of food, at the time that they are going
to be eaten stale ? According to the latter view stale cakes and sweets
also would have to be eaten only after having been mixed with oils."

There is, it is argued, no room for any such doubt: since what is
asserted by the words 'may be eaten though stale ' is only the eatability
of food mixed with oils ; so that the epithet 'mixed with oils' is part of
the Subject, and not of the Predicate. Nor do we find it referred to by
the pronoun 'tat' 'that', by any such form of expression as 'what
is stale, that may be eaten mixed with oils' (which would make the epithet
part of the Predicate).

The answer to this is that there is still home ground for doubt ;: as (according
to the explanation just suggested) there would be no point in the separate
mention of the 'remnants of sacrificial offering' which are stale and
not mixed with oils (the latter being implied by their being mentioned
apart from 'food mixed with oils:' because there is no chance of these
remnants being 'mixed with oils' and becoming 'stale'. Consequently the
separate mention of these can have some sense only if in their case it
were not considered necessary to mix oils at the time of eating. So that
the separate mention of these becomes justified only if, in the case of
these Remnants, it be not necessary to mix oils at the time of eating (which
is considered necessary in the case of the other articles of food!)

But, even so, there need not be any doubt. For in that case, it would
be only right to take the epithet 'mixed with oils' as part of the
Predicate, for the purpose of justifying the separate mention of the 'Remnants
of sacrificial offerings.' [So that thus also, the meaning would be quite
clear, though different from what we had explained before, ]

In answer to this it is argued that there is only this ground for doubt
that in view of the fact that the direct construction of the words as they
stand is always to be preferred to any other roundabout constructions,—would
it be right to regard the mention of the 'sacrificial remnants' as merely
reiterative (and not injunctive) [in which case it may well be left
pointless] ? Or that, in order to guard against the mention being
pointless, the words should be construed to mean that whatever is stale
should be mixed with oils at the time of eating ?

On this point there is no doubt; rather than allow the words of the
text to be regarded as pointless, it is far more reasonable to have
recourse to the indirect method of construction. The real decision however
depends entirely upon usage.